Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/86614Full metadata record
| ???org.dspace.app.webui.jsptag.ItemTag.dcfield??? | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 林明昕(Ming-Hsin Lin) | |
| dc.contributor.author | An-Yuan Huang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 黃安遠 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-20T00:06:35Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2022-08-12 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2022-08-08 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 壹、中文部分 一、書籍 吳庚、張文郁（2016），《行政爭訟法論》，八版，元照 林家祺（2009），《政府採購行政訴訟—訴之利益理論與實務》，新學林。 林家祺（2019），《政府採購法》，四版，新學林。 翁岳生主編（2002），《行政訴訟法逐條釋義》，五南。 翁岳生主編（2006），《行政法（下）》，三版，元照。 陳敏（2019），《行政法總論》，十版，自刊。 程明修（2016），《行政私法與私行政法》，自刊。 黃鈺華主編（2021），《政府採購法解讀—逐條釋義》，八版，元照。 詹鎮榮（2015），《行政法總論之變遷與續造》，元照。 潘秀菊（2009），《政府採購法》，新學林。 謝哲勝、李金松（2019），《政府採購法實用》，二版，元照。 羅昌發（2008），《政府採購法與政府採購協定論析》，三版，元照。 二、書之篇章 林明昕（2006），〈行政爭訟上停止執行之實體審查標準—以行政訴訟法第一百十六條第二項為中心〉，收於：湯德宗、劉淑範主（編），《2005行政管制與行政爭訟》，頁1-39，新學林。 林明鏘(2015)，〈政府採購制度之檢討與修法建議—從聯合國反貪腐公約第9條第1項規定論起〉，收於：法務部廉政署（編），《聯合國反貪腐公約專題學術研討會論文集：我國之實踐與展望》，頁145-180，法務部廉政署。 陳英鈐（2003），〈論撤銷訴訟之暫時權利保護—從雙贏的風險分配評析實務見解〉，收於：林明鏘、葛克昌（編），《行政法實務與理論（一）》 ，頁233-276，元照。 陳愛娥（2012），〈政府採購爭議之暫時權利保護〉，收於：台灣行政法學會（編），《公法上暫時處分與權利救濟／公平交易與環境保護之新思維》，頁111-133，台灣行政法學會。 程明修（2014），〈公私協力法律關係之雙階爭訟困境〉，收於：台灣行政法學會（編），《現代行政之正當法律程序／公私協力與行政合作法制》，頁115-147，台灣行政法學會。 三、期刊論文 王富仙（2013），〈政府採購法上異議之正當法律程序〉，《軍法專刊》，59卷6期，頁92-119。 李旭銘（2007），〈政府採購中不合格標廠商之救濟—評高雄高等行政法院九十三年度訴字第二○八號判決〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，144期，頁105-124。 李建良（2010），〈行政三法實施十週年／行政訴訟實務十年掠影（二○○○年～二○一○年）〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第182期，頁19-62。 李建良（2013），〈環評訴訟權能之論證構造與停止執行之審查要件：《美麗灣渡假村停止執行案》—闡析高雄高等行政法院102年度停字第7號裁定〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，第237期，頁63-78。 李惠宗（2014），〈行政處分停止執行制度的商榷—從訴訟權的有效保障檢討訴訟不停止執行的立法適當性〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，第246期，頁76-94。 林明昕（2001），〈論行政訴訟法上之「執行（不）停止原則」〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，77期，頁66-79。 林明昕（2006），〈論ETC案中之行政爭訟問題—以暫時權利保護為中心〉，《台灣本土法學雜誌》，82期，頁226-233。 林明鏘（2006），〈ETC判決與公益原則—評台北高等行政法院九十四年訴字第七五二號判決及九十四年度停字第一二二號裁定〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，134期，頁5-25。 林明鏘（2006），〈促進民間參與公共建設法事件法律性質之分析〉，《台灣本土法學雜誌》，82期，頁218-225。 林家祺（2008），〈政府採購行政訴訟之權利保護必要—以臺北高等行政法院九十三年度訴字第四二三六號判決看重複發生危險原則之適用〉，《律師雜誌》，16期，頁63-78 林家祺（2006），〈政府採購訴訟事件行政法院與普通法院審判權之界線〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，133期，頁91-109。 林家祺（2008），〈政府採購法制變革與爭議處理機制—以德國法為例〉，《法學叢刊》，53卷2期，頁101-127。 林家祺（2008），〈政府採購進度之持續進行與權利保護必要之欠缺〉，《玄奘法律學報》，9期，頁87-123。 林家祺（2013），〈政府採購程序中『沒收及追繳押標金』之法律屬性及時效探討〉，《真理財經法學》，11期，頁71-104。 林素鳳（2007），〈情況判決制度之研究〉，《東吳公法論叢》，1期，頁33-48。 林誠二（2016），〈政府採購案件中決標性質之判斷／最高院103台上2253判決〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，310期，頁138-146。 邵慶平（2013），〈金融管制與私人執行—國際金融危機後管制發展的反省〉，《國立中正大學法學集刊》，40卷，頁95-141。 姚志明（2010）。〈工程法專題研究系列之一／公共營建工程契約之成立—以營建工程之招標、決標為中心〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，181期，頁213-232。 徐瑞晃（2010），〈行政訴訟程序停止執行之要件及內容〉，《華岡法粹》，48期，頁197-228。 張南勳、黃立（2013），〈政府採購法上認定不良廠商及追繳押標金之時效及其起算〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，223期，頁159-173。 張祥暉（2003），〈政府採購法修法後之問題探討—以九十一年二月修頒版本為核心〉，《台灣本土法學雜誌》，47期，頁5-19。 盛子龍（2006），〈租稅法：第三講—租稅合課處分之暫時權利保護〉，《月旦法學教室》，48期，頁84-94。 陳英鈐（2006），〈行政法院作為行政程序的守護神—評台北高等行政法院對ETC案裁判〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，132期，頁150-164。 陳英鈐（2009），〈確認撤銷決標處分違法訴訟與損害賠償—評最高行政法院九八年度判字第五一九號判決〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，139期，頁238-244。 陳清秀（1998），〈特許合約與公權力之行使〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，34期，頁52-60。 陳愛娥（2006），〈促進民間參與公共建設事件中的行為形式與權力劃分—評台北高等行政法院九十四年度訴字第七五二號判決、九十四年度停字第一二二號裁定〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，134期，頁26-45。 陳愛娥（2016），〈經濟行政領域中的程序保障—以分配程序(Verteilungsverfahren)為觀察重心〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，310期，頁1-27。 陳瑋佑（2020），〈不當保全命令之損害賠償責任—以民事訴訟法第531條第1項所定「債權人未依限起訴」及「債權人聲請」之責任事由為中心〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，305期，頁81-101。 陳錫平（2021），〈政府採購之迅速及有效救濟原則—國際法要求與我國立法及司法實踐之評析〉，《中研院法學期刊》，29期，頁307-401。 陳錫平（2022），〈受機關補助辦理採購之人民團體因適用政府採購法而為受託行使公權力之團體？—評最高行政法院107年度判字第218號判決〉，《月旦裁判時報》，115期，頁16-27。 陳聰富（2006），〈政府採購「共同投標」之撤銷決標與損害賠償〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，140期，頁135-151。 陳麗娟（2014），〈歐盟政府採購法改革之研究〉，《貿易政策論叢》，21期，頁153-181。 傅玲靜（2011），〈土地徵收與情況判決—評最高行政法院九十九年度判字第一九九號判決〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，199期，頁198-209。 程明修（2002），〈針對學生退學處分之行政訴訟選擇—兼評台北高等行政法院八十九年度訴字第一八三三號判決〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，82期，頁102-115。 程明修（2004），〈雙階理論之虛擬與實際〉，《東吳法律學報》，15卷2期，頁165-204。 程明修（2006），〈公私協力契約相對人之選任爭議—以最高行政法院95年度判字第1239號判決（ETC 案）之若干爭點為中心〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，138期，頁28-37。 程明修（2006），〈行政訴訟類型之適用—有關雙階理論、行政處分是否消滅的爭議〉，《台灣本土法學雜誌》，81期，頁116-121。 程明修（2015），〈政府採購法與文化藝術獎助條例拼湊之「三階理論」？—以行政院公共工程委員會〈訴1040008號〉採購申訴審議判斷書為例〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，279期，頁73-91。 程明修（2021），〈政府採購法上申訴決定撤銷範圍之研究〉，《興大法學》，30期，頁1-25。 黃立（2006），〈政府作為消費者—台灣與德國採購法制之比較〉，《政大法學評論》，92期，頁219-300。 詹鎮榮（2006），〈促進民間參與公共建設法之現實與理論—評台北高等行政法院之ETC相關裁判〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第134期，頁46-67。 詹鎮榮（2013），〈論經濟行政法上之競爭者訴訟〉，《政大法學評論》，132期，頁261-336。 劉建宏（2006），〈ETC案與情況判決〉，《台灣本土法學雜誌》，81期，頁126-129。 潘欣榮(2011)，〈政府採購法下招標爭議案件訴權內容及訴訟類型之研究〉，《法令月刊》，62卷6期，頁97-125。 蔡茂寅（2000），〈情況判決與清況決定〉，《台灣本土法學雜誌》，7期，頁100-105。 蔡進良（1999），〈論行政救濟上人民權利之暫時保護—新修正訴願法及行政訴訟法之檢討〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，47期，頁65-82。 蔡震榮（2009），〈再論訴願停止執行〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，170期，頁162-182。 蔡震榮（2013），〈行政執行法第11條所稱公法上金錢給付義務之確定及範圍—以政府採購法上之「追繳押標金」為中心〉，《東吳公法論叢》，6期，頁31-61。 四、學位論文 江承頤（2021），《公法上競爭者關係及其救濟之研究》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文（未出版），臺北。 陳思宏（2012），《雙階關係中前階行為效力對後階行為之影響—以政府採購為中心》，東吳大學法律學系法律專業碩士班碩士論文（未出版），臺北。 楊曜綸（2013），《暫停政府採購程序之研究》，國立國防大學管理學院法律學系碩士論文（未出版），桃園。 五、研究報告 江嘉琪（2012），〈政府採購行為法律性質之再思考—我國與德國法之比較觀察〉，行政院國家科學委員會委託之研究成果報告（NSC100-2410-H194-112-MY2 ），網址：https://www.grb.gov.tw/search/planDetail?id=2388731（最後瀏覽日期：2022/6/5）。 林明昕（2011），〈政府採購法及促進民間參與公共建設法中權利救濟制度之立法革新〉，行政院國家科學委員會委託之研究成果報告（NSC100-2410-H002-014 ），網址：https://www.grb.gov.tw/search/planDetail?id=2344806（最後瀏覽日期：2022/6/5） 陳世圯（研究主持人）（2009），〈政府採購制度問題探討與對策〉，行政院研究發展考核委員會之委託研究報告（RDEC-RES-097-032），網址：https://ws.ndc.gov.tw/001/administrator/10/relfile/5644/3229/0058911_1.pdf（最後瀏覽日期：2022/6/5） 貳、英文文獻 一、書籍 Arrowsmith, S. (2005). The law of public and utilities procurement (2nd ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. Bovis, C. H. (2007). EU public procurement law. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 二、期刊 Arnould, J. (2008). Damages for performing an illegal contract: The other side of the mirror–Comments on the three recent judgements of the French Council of State. Public Procurement Law Review, 17(6), NA274-281. Arnould, J. (2003). The consequences of the Alcatel Austria case under French law: The Sodisfom judgement of the Administrative Court of Paris, April 1, 2003. Public Procurement Law Review, 12(6), NA148-150 Arrowsmith, S. (2002). The character and role of national challenge procedures under the Government Procurement Agreement. Public Procurement Law Review 11(4), 235-260 Arrowsmith, S. (2006). Implementation of the new EC procurement directives and the Alcatel ruling in England and Wales and Northern Ireland: A review of the new legislation and guidance. Public Procurement Law Review, 15(3), 86-136. Arrowsmith, S. (2006). The past and future evolution of EC procurement law from framework to common code. Public Contract Law Journal, 35(3), 337-384. Arrowsmith, S., & Craven, R. (2016). Public procurement and access to justice: A legal and empirical study of the UK system. Public Procurement Law Review, 25(6), 227-252. Bovis, C. (2012). Public procurement in the EU: Jurisprudenec and conceptual directions. Common Market Law Review, 49(1), 247-289. Brown, A. (1998). Effectiveness of remedies at national level in the field of public procurement. Public Procurement Law Review, 7(4), 89-94. Brown, A. (2006). Applying Alcatel in the context of competitive dialogue. Public Procurement Law Review, 15(6), 332-337. Brown, A. (2009). Commission of the European Communities v France (C-327/08): A French provision breaches Remedies Directives 89/665 and 92/13 by jeopardising the effectiveness of the standstill between notification of the award decision and conclusion of the contract. Public Procurement Law Review, 18(6), NA222-225. Brown, A. (2010). EU rimary law requirements in practice: Advertising, procedures and remedies for public contracts outside the procurement directives. Public Procurement Law Review, 19(5), 169-181. Browne, D., & Healy, J. (2015). Has a 'complete solution' been found for lifting the automatic suspension in public procurement challenges?. Irish Journal of European Law, 18(2), 43-54. Cantor, J. R. (1997). Bid protests and procurement reform: The case for leaving well enough alone. Public Contract Law Journal, 27(1), 155-178. Caranta, R. (2015). Remedies in EU public contract law: The proceduralisation of EU public procurement legislation. Public Procurement Law Review, 8(1), 75-98. Carvalho, R (2017). The remedy of ineffectiveness: Reform perspectives. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 12(4), 374-382. Clifton, M. (2009). Ineffectiveness–The new deterrent: Will the new remedis directive ensure greater compliance with the substantive procurement rules in the classical sectors?. Public Procurement Law Review, 18(4), 165-183. Davis, C. (2002). The European Court of Justice decision in Alcatel – The implications in the United Kingdom for procurement remedies and PFI. Public Procurement Law Review, 11(5), 282-287. Dischendorfer M., & Arrowsmith S. (2004). Case C-212/05, Commission v Austria: The requirement for effective remedies to challenge an award decision. Public Procurement Law Review, 13(6), 165-168. Dischendorfer, M., & Oehler, M. (2000). Case C328/96: The position of unlawfully concluded contracts under community law. Public Procurement Law Review, 9(2), CS50-53. Dischendorfer, M., & Oehler, M. (2000). Case C81/98: The ability to challenge the contract award decision under community law. Public Procurement Law Review, 9(2), CS54-58. Filipon, S. (2011). The Romanian experience with interim measures and automatic suspension. Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law, 38, 137-168. Golding, J., & Henty, P. (2008). The new remedies directive of the EC: Standstill and ineffectiveness. Public Procurement Law Review, 17(3), 146-160. Gordon, D. I. (2013). Bid protests: The costs are real, but the benefits outweigh them. Public Contract Law Journal, 42(3), 489-516. Gutknecht, B. (2000). The judgement of the Court of Justice in case C81/98 Altacel Austria AG v Federal Ministry for Science and Transport – “Okopoints” and the consequences for Austria procurement law. Public Procurement Law Review, 9(1), CS14-18. Halonen, K.-M. (2015). Is the remedy of contractual ineffectiveness truly effective in Finland?. European Procurement & Public Private Law Review, 10(4), 310-315. Halonen, K.-M. (2015). Shielding against damages for contractual ineffectiveness. Public Procurement Law Review, 24(4), 111-121. Halonen, K.-M. (2017). Termination of a public contract– Lifting the veil on Art. 73 of 2014/24 Directive. Public Procurement Law Review, 26(5), 187-198. Hansen, R. M. (1997), CICA without enforcement: How procurement officials and Federal Court decisions are undercutting enforcement provisions of the competition in Contracting Act. George Mason Law Review, 6(1), 135-140 Henty, P. (2006). Is the standstill a step forward? The proposed revision to the EC remedies directive. Public Procurement Law Review, 15(5), 253-265. Huber, P. M. (2007). The europeanization of public procurement in Germany. European Public Law, 7(1), 33-49. Koninck, C. (2014). Pre- and post contractual remedies. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 9(1), 77-[ii]. Kosckinen, L. (2006), Reform of public procurement remedies: A first look at the Commission proposal for an amending directive. EIPASScope, 2006(3), 19-24. Lang, G. (2013). From slow and simple to rapid but complex remarks on the evolution of the Polish remedies system. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 8(2), 132-142. Marshall, R. C., Meurer, M. J., & Richard, J-F. (1991). The private attorney general meets public contract law: Procurement oversight by protest. Hofstra Law Review, 20(1), 1-72. Matei, E. (2013). The sanction regime applicable to an illegal direct award initiated before the remedies directive has taken full effect. Revista Romana de Drept European, 2013(4), 103-126. Metzger, R. S., & Lyons, D. A. (2007). A critical reassessment of GAO bid-protest mechanism. Wisconsin Law Review, 2007(6), 1225-1270. Niestedt, M. (2005). Penalties despite compliance? A note on Case-503/04, Commission v Germany. Public Procurement Law Review 12(6), 164-170. Olivera, R. D. (2015). Modification of public contract: Transposition and interpretation of the new EU directives. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 10(1), 35-49. Pachnou, D. (2003). Bidder remedies to enforce the EC procurement rules in England and Wales. Public Procurement Law Review, 12(1), 35-64. Pachnou, D. (2005). “Bidders” use of mechanisms to enforece EC procurement law. Public Procurement Law Review, 14(5), 256-263. Pascariu, L. (2015). Remedies and means of redress in public procurement–Milestones of the new legislative framework. European Journal of Law and Public Administration, 2(3), 93-98. Priess, H-J (1996). New infringement proceeding regarding the transposition of the remedies directives. Public Procurement Law Review, 5(2), CS51-CS53. Racca, G. M., & Perin, R. C. (2013). Material amendments of public contracts during their terms: From violations of competetion to symptoms of corruption. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 8(4), 279-293 Rubach-Larsen, A. (2006). Damages under German law for infringement of EU procurement law. Public Procurement Law Review, 15(4), 189-191. Simovart, M. A. (2009). The new remedies directive: Would a diligent businessman enter into ineffective procurement contracts?. presentation at the fourth public procurement PhD conference held at the School of Law, University of Nottingham, on September 7-8, 2009. Simovart, M. A. (2015). Old remedies for new violations? The deficit of remedies for enforcing public contract modification rules. UrT, 2015(1), 33-47. Stelkens, U. (2021). Judicial protection and competitive award procedures in Germany. Review of European Administrative Law, 14(1), 141-165. Struckmann, K., & Hodal, P. (2014), Private enforcement of contract ineffectiveness: A practitioner’s point of view. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 9(1), 27-35. Swan, C. D. (2013). Lessons from across the pond: Comparable approaches to balancing contractual efficiency and accountability in the U.S. bid protest and european procurement review systems. Public Contract Law Journal, 43(1), 29-56. Timmermans, W., & Gelders, M. (2005). Standstill obligations in European and Belgian public procurement law. Public Procurement Law Review, 14(6), 265-290. Treumer, S (2014). Contract changes and the duty to retender under the new EU Public Procurement Directive. Public Procurement Law Review, 23(3), 148-155. Treumer, S. (2006). Damages for breach of the EC public procurement rules– Changes in European regulation and practice. Public Procurement Law Review, 15(4), 159-170. Treumer, S. (2006). The discrectionary powers of contracting entities–Towards a flexible approach in the recent case law of the Court of Justice?. Public Procuremt Law Review, 12(3), 71-85. Treumer, S. (2007). Towards an obligation to terminate contracts concluded in breach of the EC public procurement rules: The end of the status of concluded public contracts as sacred crows. Public Procurement Law Review, 16(6), 371-386. Treumer, S. (2012). The new remedy ineffectiveness in EU public procurement law, good faith and claims for damages. In Andenas, M. & Lilleholt, K. (eds.). Remedies and substantive law–European dimesions of econimics and private law. European Business Law Review, 23(6), 906-912. Von Maur, B. (2010). The remedial regime of the public contracts regulations and its shortcomings. Queen Mary Law Journal, 1, 13-34. Wilkinson, K. J., & Ehlers, D. C. (2007), Ensuring CICA overrides are reasonable, supportable, and less vulnerable to attack: Practical recommendations in light of recent COFC cases. Air Force Law Review, 60, 91-114. Williams, R. (2003). Remedying a breach of community law: The judgement in Joined Cases C-20/01 and C-28/01, Commission v Germany. Public Procurement Law Review, 12(5), 109-115. Williams, R. (2003). Remedying a breach of community law–Contracts for waste disposal and treatment–How far do a member state’s obligation go?. Environmental Liability, Law Practice and Policy, 11(3), 115-119. Williams, R. (2008). A new remedies directive for the European Community. Public Procurement Law Review, 17(2), NA19-25. Wilman, F. (2016). The end of the absence: The growing body of EU legislation on private enforcement and the main remedies it provides for. Common Market Law Review, 53(4), 887-935. Wollenschläger, F. (2015). EU law principles for allocating scarce goods and the emergence of an allocation procedure. Review of European Administrative Law, 8(1), 205-ii. 三、書之篇章 Adriaanse, P. C., van Ommeren, F. J., den Ouden, W., & Wolswinkel, J. (2016). The allocation of limited rights by the administration: A quest for a general legal theory. In P. C. Adriaanse, F. J. van Ommeren, W. den Ouden, & J. Wolswinkel (Eds.), Scarcity and the state: The allocation of limited rights by the administration (pp.3-25). Intersentia. Banks, F., & Bowsher, M. (2011). Damages remedy in England & Wales and Northern Ireland. In D. Fairgrieve, & F. Lichère (Eds.), Public procurement law–Damages as an effective remedy (pp. 61-74). Hart Publishing. Burgi, M. (2011). A report about the German remedies system. In S. Treumer, & F. Lichère (Eds.), Enforcement of the EU public procurement rules (pp. 105-154). DJØF Publishing. Caranta, R. (2011). Many different paths, but are they all leading to effectiveness?. In S. Treumer, & F. Lichère (Eds.), Enforcement of the EU public procurement rules (pp. 53-93). DJØF Publishing. Comba, M. (2011). Enforcement of EU procurement rules. The Italian system of remedies. In S. Treumer, & F. Lichère (Eds.), Enforcement of the EU public procurement rules (pp. 235-254). DJØF Publishing. Dragos, D., Neamtu, B., & Veliscu, R. (2011). Remedies in public procurement in Romania. In S. Treumer, & F. Lichère (Eds.), Enforcement of the EU public procurement rules (pp. 155-200). DJØF Publishing. Lichère, F., & Gabayet, N. (2011). Enforcement of the public procurement rules in France. In S. Treumer, & F. Lichère (Eds.), Enforcement of the EU public procurement rules (pp. 299-330). DJØF Publishing. Marique, Y. (2016). Changes during performance–A case for revising the extension of competition. In Y. Marique, & K. Wauters (Eds.), EU Directive 2014/24 on public procurement: A new turn for competition in public markets? (pp. 197-215). Larcier. Priess, H-J., & Friton, P. (2011). Designing effective challenge procedure: The EU’s experience with remedies. In S. Arrowsmith, & R. D. Anderson (Eds.), The WTO regime on government procurement: Challenge and reform (pp. 511-531). Cambridge University Press. Treumer, S. (2011). Enforcement of the EU public procurement rules: The state of law and current issues. In S. Treumer, & F. Lichère (Eds.), Enforcement of the EU public procurement rules (pp. 17-52). DJØF Publishing. Treumer, S. (2011). Enforcement of the EU public procurement rules: Danish regulation and practise. In S. Treumer, & F. Lichère (Eds.), Enforcement of the EU public procurement rules (pp. 255-298). DJØF Publishing. Trybus, M. (2011). An overview of the United Kingdom public procurement review and remedies system with an emphasis on England and Wales. In S. Treumer, & F. Lichère (Eds.), Enforcement of the EU public procurement rules (pp. 201-234). DJØF Publishing. Van Ommeren, F. (2016) Challenges for the national legislator: The allocation of limited rights by the administration. In P. C. Adriaanse, F. J. van Ommeren, W. den Ouden, & J. Wolswinkel (Eds.), Scarcity and the state: The allocation of limited rights by the administration (pp. 73-91). Intersentia. Wollenschläger, F. (2016). The allocation of limited rights by the administration: Challenges of legal protection. In P. C. Adriaanse, F. J. van Ommeren, W. den Ouden, & J. Wolswinkel (Eds.), Scarcity and the state: The allocation of limited rights by the administration (pp. 93-124). Intersentia. 四、研究報告 European Commission (1985). Completing the internal market: White paper from the Commission to the European Council. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4ff490f3-dbb6-4331-a2ea-a3ca59f974a8 European Commission (2006). Commission staff working document–Annex to the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC CEE with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts {COM(2006) 195}–Impact assessment report–Remedies in the field of public procurement (SEC(2006) 557). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex:52006SC0557 European Commission (2017). Commission staff working document: Evalutation of the modifications introduced by Directive 2007/66/EC to Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC concerning the European framework for remedies in the area of public procurement/ refit evaluation (SWD (2017) 13 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017SC0013 European Commission (2017). Reprot from the Commission to the European Parliment and the Council: On the effectiveness of Directive 89/665/EEC and Directive 92/13/EEC, as modified by Directive 2007/66/EC, concerning review procedures on the area of public procurement (SWD (2017) 13 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2017%3A28%3AFIN European Economic and Social Committee (2006), Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (COM (2006) 195 final/2). Wood, A. (2004). Wood Review: Investigating UK business experiences of competing for public contracts in other EU countries: A report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer & Secretary of State for Trade & Industry. Office of Government Commerce. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/86614 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 我國政府採購法之制定賦予原本救濟無門之招審決爭議救濟途徑，並且於西元 2002 年之修法後，確立招審決標之爭議應依異議、申訴程序。然而，縱使獲得過去所無之救濟機會，廠商仍無法獲得實質有效的保障。首先，採購救濟之暫時權利保護得分為政府採購法之暫停採購程序及行政訴訟法之停止執行，但兩者皆因為實務過於嚴苛的見解導致廠商實際上難以透過暫時權利保護暫停採購程序（阻止採購契約成立）或契約履行。其次，暫時權利保護的缺乏進而使救濟廠商難以成功獲得第一次權利保護，失去獲得締結採購契約之機會。尤有甚者，行政訴訟與政府採購之相容性亦啟人疑竇。然而以上的問題長久以來皆未被實務或立法者之改善。 反觀歐盟，其於 1989 年制定首部政府採購救濟指令後，亦發生與我國類似的問題。亦即，歐盟在當時同樣欠缺暫時權利保護；甚至由於部分成員國對於契約嚴守原則過於堅持，一旦採購契約成立以後，廠商所得提起的救濟僅剩下損害賠償。在經過歐洲法院兩則關鍵之判決後，採購救濟的困境稍獲改善。儘管如此，歐洲執委會仍然辨識出採購救濟之最大的兩個問題：違法直接決標及競逐簽約，並且欲促使採購救濟之改革。於 2007 年，歐盟對先前之採購救濟指令進行修正且明文化兩則歐洲法院之重要判決，提出兩個重要的改革方向：強化契約前救濟及制定具嚇阻力之懲罰，亦即暫停期間、自動停止及契約無效等。在新制施行後，儘管仍有些許問題，歐盟採購救濟之成果斐然。 對照歐盟之發展歷程，我國處於類似歐盟 2007 年改革前之狀態。因此，本文認為我國應引進暫停期間及自動停止，同時為降低強力暫時權利保護所可能帶來之衝擊，應作出相應之改革。例如，限制廠商契約成立後之救濟，僅在例外情形得請求宣告契約無效，以及改善救濟程序之耗時。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | The Government Procurement Act was implemented in 1999 and substantially amended in 2002. After the amendment, for disputes arising out of the invitation to tender (pre-contractual disputes), a tender may file a protest or complaint according to Article 75 and 76 of The Government Procurement Act. Tenders may even further appeal against the complaint decision to high administrative courts. A complete review procedure seems to have been established for disappointed tenders. However, the review procedures prescribed in The Government Procurement Act and Administrative Litigation Act are not effective enough to provide disappointed tenders with complete legal protection, especially due to deficiencies in interim measures. This thesis points out that successful cases applying for interim injunction are rare because of the Administrative Courts’ unreasonably restrictive interpretation of regulation concerning interim measures, which is even worse in procurement cases. Without interim measures suspending the procuring procedure and the performance of the contract, possibility of disappointed tenderers obtaining primary legal protection, for example setting aside an illegal decision by a procuring entity, would decrease dramatically. Therefore, disappointed tenderers failing to apply for interim measures have no choice but to turn to secondary legal protection (the award of damages) and lose the opportunity to obtain the award. This has been a long-lasting issue since the promulgation of The Government Procurement Act in 1998. On the other hand, there has been a similar issue in the old procurement remedy directives of The European Union, which, however, was solved by the introduction of the new procurement remedy directives. The old remedy directives allowed member states to provide that, after the conclusion of a contract following its award, the powers of the body responsible for the review procedures shall be limited to awarding damages to any person harmed by an infringement, which was adapted by most member states owing to pacta sunt servanda (sanctity of contract). Furthermore, the malfunction of interim measures preventing procurement contracts from being concluded or performed in procurement cases led to the situation that once the contracts were concluded, infringements in procurement procedure could no longer be corrected and disappointed tenders could only claim for damages. These problems were identified as “illegal direct award,” “race to signature” and “inherent limits of damages action.” However, aimed at solving the identified problems, the new remedy directives introduced standstill period, automatic suspension and ineffectiveness in order to strengthen pre-contractual remedies and sanction and deter infringement of procurement directives. With the introduction of the new system, an effective and rapid review procedure has been established to protect disappointed tenders and correct alleged infringement. The issue in Taiwan is similar to the “race to signature” that occurred The European Union. To improve the pre-contractual remedy system in Taiwan, this thesis will argue that standstill period, automatic suspension and ineffectiveness should be introduced into The Government Procurement Act. In addition, corresponding adjustments should be adapted in order to reduce impact due to standstill period and automatic suspension. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-20T00:06:35Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-0408202212512600.pdf: 1364794 bytes, checksum: e852270c5a62b2084d46486e1071e44c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與目的 1 第二節 研究範圍與架構 3 第二章 我國採購法招審決爭議救濟之缺陷 7 第一節 因採購契約成立而受阻之本案救濟 7 第二節 失靈的暫時權利保護制度 22 第三節 小結 65 第三章 歐盟採購救濟之發展：歐盟初代採購救濟指令 69 第一節 制定背景及規範內容 69 第二節 重大問題及改革呼聲 81 第三節 小結 105 第四章 歐盟採購救濟之改革:歐盟次代採購救濟指令 107 第一節 新修正之規範內容 107 第二節 後續實踐及發展 118 第三節 小結 155 第五章 改革我國採購救濟之建議:強化契約前救濟 158 第一節 政府採購暫時權利保護之改革 159 第二節 其他採購救濟之配改革 168 第三節 小結 180 第六章 結論 182 參考文獻 184 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 停止執行 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 政府採購法 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 暫停採購程序 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 暫時權利保護 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 採購救濟指令 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 政府採購法 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 暫停採購程序 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 停止執行 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 暫時權利保護 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 採購救濟指令 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | procurement remedy directives | en |
| dc.subject | The Government Procurement Act | en |
| dc.subject | suspension of procuring procedure | en |
| dc.subject | stay of execution | en |
| dc.subject | interim measures | en |
| dc.subject | suspension of procuring procedure | en |
| dc.subject | The Government Procurement Act | en |
| dc.subject | procurement remedy directives | en |
| dc.subject | interim measures | en |
| dc.subject | stay of execution | en |
| dc.title | 政府採購法招審決爭議之暫時權利保護：以歐盟採購救濟指令為借鑑 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Interim Measures of Pre-contractual Remedies in Public Procurement Law: The Procurement Remedy Directives of European Union as a Reference | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 程明修(Ming-Shiou Cherng),吳從周(Chung-Jau Wu) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 政府採購法,暫停採購程序,停止執行,暫時權利保護,採購救濟指令, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | The Government Procurement Act,suspension of procuring procedure,stay of execution,interim measures,procurement remedy directives, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 201 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202202050 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2022-08-08 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2022-08-12 | - |
| Appears in Collections: | 法律學系 | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-0408202212512600.pdf | 1.33 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.